Order Code RL32856
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Agency:
Appropriations for FY2006
Updated August 25, 2005
Robert Esworthy and David Bearden
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service { The Library of Congress
Environmental Protection Agency:
Appropriations for FY2006
Summary
The 109th Congress moved funding jurisdiction for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) from the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development (VA-HUD), and Independent Agencies appropriations subcommittee
to the Interior subcommittee. Title II of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2006 (P.L. 109-54, H.R. 2361) provides $7.73
billion for EPA, subject to an across-the-board rescission of 0.476%. Section 439 of
Title IV indicates that the rescission is to be applied proportionately among each
account, program, project, and activity specified in the law, accompanying reports,
and the President’s budget request. The total FY2006 EPA appropriation includes
an additional $80 million in unobligated funds “rescinded” from past appropriations.
P.L. 109-54 provides more funding for EPA than the Administration’s FY2006
request of $7.52 billion, but less than the FY2005 appropriation of $8.03 billion.
Although there are varying levels of interest in funding for specific activities within
EPA’s eight appropriations accounts, considerable debate focused on funding for the
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account, particularly the level of funding
for assistance to states and communities for water infrastructure projects.
A large portion of the funding provided within the STAG account is for grants
to support state revolving funds (SRFs) for loans to communities for constructing and
upgrading water infrastructure to meet federal clean water and drinking water
requirements. P.L. 109-54 provides $900 million for the clean water SRF. As
passed by the House, H.R. 2361 would have provided $850 million (including $100
million in rescinded funds from prior years). The Senate-passed version of H.R.
2361 would have provided $1.10 billion. The Administration’s request would have
reduced funding for the clean water SRF from $1.09 billion in FY2005 to $730
million in FY2006. P.L. 109-54 provides $850 million for the drinking water SRF
prior to the rescission, the same as the House and Senate proposed and the
Administration requested, and similar to the FY2005 appropriation.
Other prominent issues of debate included funding for the cleanup of hazardous
waste sites under the Superfund program, the cleanup and redevelopment of certain
commercial and industrial sites referred to as brownfields, EPA’s homeland security
activities, and “congressional project priorities” or earmarks. In addition to the
adequacy of funding, another key issue regarding the Superfund program has been
whether to continue using general Treasury revenues to fund the account, or reinstate
a tax on industry that originally paid for most of the program.
Among the many individual programs throughout EPA’s eight appropriations
accounts, P.L. 109-54 reflects increases for certain activities, and decreases for
others, when compared to the House and Senate proposals, the President’s FY2006
request, and the FY2005 appropriation. P.L. 109-54 also contains a number of
provisions specifying or prohibiting certain actions by EPA, including provisions
regarding the agency’s protocols and use of intentional human dosing studies for
determining potential health risks of pesticides. This report will be updated to reflect
further action on appropriations.
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
History and Mission of EPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
EPA’s Budget for FY2006 by Appropriations Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Science and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Human Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Research/Congressional Priorities (Earmarks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
EPA and Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Clean Air Act Research and Implementation (S&T) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Environmental Programs and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Brownfields Program Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Environmental Education Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Clean Air Act Research and Implementation (EPM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Pesticide Registration and Chemical Manufacturing Fees . . . . . . . . . 14
Environmental Protection/Congressional Priorities (Earmarks) . . . . . 15
Geographic/Ecosystem Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Office of Inspector General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Buildings and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Hazardous Substance Superfund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Oil Spill Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
State and Tribal Assistance Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
State Revolving Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Special Project Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Other Water Infrastructure Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Categorical Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Brownfields Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Clean School Bus Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
List of Figures
Figure 1. EPA Discretionary Budget Authority FY1970-FY2006:
Adjusted and Not Adjusted for Inflation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2006 Appropriations
(P.L. 109-54, Title II) by Appropriations Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
List of Tables
Table 1. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations Accounts:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . 6
Table 2. Science and Technology Account: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request,
and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3. EPA Homeland Security Activities Funding: FY2005 Enacted,
FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4. Funding within the S&T Account for Selected EPA Clean Air Act
Activities: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and
Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 5. Environmental Programs and Management Account:
FY2005 Enacted, the FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations . . . 12
Table 6. Funding Within the EPM Account for Selected EPA Clean Air Act
Activities: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and
Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 7. Funding for Selected Geographic/Ecosystem Programs:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . 16
Table 8. Office of Inspector General Account: FY2005 Enacted,
FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 9. Buildings and Facilities Account: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request,
and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 10. Hazardous Substance Superfund Account: FY2005 Enacted,
FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 11. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program Account:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . 20
Table 12. Oil Spill Response Account: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request,
and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 13. State and Tribal Assistance Grants Account: FY2005 Enacted,
FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 14. Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs: FY2005 Enacted,
FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 15. Funding for Categorical Grants: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request,
and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 16. Brownfields Funding: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request,
and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Environmental Protection Agency:
Appropriations for FY2006
Most Recent Developments
On August 2, 2005, the President signed the FY2006 appropriations bill for
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, P.L. 109-54 (H.R. 2361, H.Rept.
109-188).1 Title II of P.L. 109-54 provides $7.73 billion for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), subject to an across-the-board rescission of 0.476%.2 The
total FY2006 EPA appropriation includes an additional $80 million in unobligated
funds “rescinded” from past appropriations. The President’s FY2006 budget request
included $7.52 billion for EPA, and Congress appropriated $8.03 billion for
FY2005.3
Introduction
The President’s FY2006 budget submitted to Congress on February 7, 2005,
included $7.52 billion for EPA, $506 million less than the $8.03 billion FY2005
appropriation. The largest proposed decrease was for grants to states for wastewater
infrastructure projects. Although the President’s budget proposed decreases for some
programs within the various accounts, it included steady or increased funding for a
number of other activities, such as cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the
Superfund program, cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields, homeland security,
and several grant programs for scientific research on human health effects.
In addition to proposed reductions for some ongoing programs, the President’s
FY2006 budget did not include funding set aside or designated by Congress in
FY2005 for individual projects, locations, or institutions (sometimes referred to as
“earmarked funding”) within the various EPA appropriations accounts. This is
consistent with past Administrations’ budget requests. According to the White
House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the President’s FY2006 budget did
1 For information regarding each of the agencies funded in this bill, see CRS Report
RL32893, Interior and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations.
2 Section 439 of Title IV indicates that the rescission is to be applied proportionately among
each account, program, project, and activity specified in the law, accompanying reports, and
the President’s budget request.
3 The FY2005 amounts presented in this report include a 0.8% congressionally mandated
across-the-board rescission to the appropriated amounts in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447, H.R. 4818). Section 122 of Title I in Division J of the act
required this rescission to be applied proportionately to all programs, projects, and activities.
(See CRS Report RS21983, FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act: Reference Guide.)
CRS-2
not include $489 million appropriated in FY2005 for “unrequested projects.” 4 More
than half of these appropriated funds were for water infrastructure projects. Many
of the projects that received similar “earmarked” funding in FY2004 were reinstated
or created as new projects during the FY2005 appropriations process.
The following sections of this report indicate the status of congressional action
on funding for EPA in FY2006, provide background information on the history and
mission of the agency, examine the President’s FY2006 budget request,5 indicate the
enacted FY2006 funding levels by appropriations account, and discuss relevant
issues. (For a discussion of broader issues relevant to the statutes and programs that
EPA administers, see CRS Issue Brief IB10146, Environmental Protection Issues in
the 109th Congress. For a discussion of FY2005 funding, see CRS Report RL32441,
Environmental Protection Agency: Appropriations for FY2005.)
In general, in this report the term appropriations refers to total funds available,
including regular annual and supplemental appropriations, as well as rescissions,
transfers, and deferrals, but excludes permanent budget authorities. FY2006
appropriations presented in this report have not been adjusted to account for the
0.476% rescission mandated in Section 439, Title IV, of P.L. 109-54. Increases and
decreases are generally calculated based on comparisons between the funding levels
as enacted for FY2006, included in the House- and Senate-passed bills, requested by
the President for FY2006, and appropriated for FY2005. Requested and appropriated
funding amounts presented throughout this report have not been adjusted for
inflation. In some cases, small increases above the previous year funding may
actually reflect a decrease when adjusted for inflation.
FY2006 appropriations amounts indicated in this report are from the final bill
and conference report, and from the House- and Senate-passed bills and their
accompanying reports. The House Committee on Appropriations is the primary
source of the funding figures used throughout the report for FY2005 enacted amounts
and the Administration’s FY2006 request. Other sources of information include the
Congressional Record, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2006
Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations
(referred to throughout this report as the EPA FY2006 budget justification), and the
OMB’s Budget of the U.S. Government: FY2006.
Congressional Action
The consideration of annual appropriations involves numerous steps leading up
to enactment. Following committee hearings, the House and Senate appropriations
subcommittees mark up their respective bills for full committee consideration. Each
full committee then marks up and reports its appropriations bill (at which time bill
4 Office of Management and Budget, Major Savings and Reforms in the President’s 2006
Budget, February 11, 2005. See [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006].
5 See [http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/budget/htm]. Also see OMB’s Budget of the U.S.
Government: FY2006, at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006].
CRS-3
numbers are assigned), followed by floor consideration and passage of the bills in
each chamber. Both chambers passed their versions of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill (or “Interior appropriations bill”) for FY2006,
which included funding for EPA, and resolved differences between the bills in
conference.
The House passed H.R. 2361 (329-89; H.Rept. 109-80) on May 19, 2005. The
Senate passed its version of H.R. 2361 (94-0; S.Rept. 109-80) on June 29, 2005. The
House agreed (410-10) to the conference report (H.Rept 109-188) on July 28, 2005,
the Senate (99-1) on July 29, 2005; and the President signed it into law (P.L. 109-54)
on August 2, 2005. Among the many individual programs, P.L. 109-54 reflects
decreases and increases throughout the various EPA appropriations accounts when
compared to the President’s FY2006 request and the FY2005 funding levels.
Title II of P.L. 109-54 provides $7.73 billion for EPA, subject to an across-the-
board 0.476% rescission (Section 439 of Title IV). The House-passed bill would
have provided $7.71 billion for EPA, and the Senate-passed bill would have provided
$7.88 billion. The President’s FY2006 budget submitted previously to Congress,
requested $7.52 billion for EPA, and Congress appropriated $8.03 billion (including
a 0.8% rescission) for FY2005. P.L. 109-54 also “rescinds” $80.0 million from past
fiscal year appropriations. In effect, the rescinded funds are an offset in the total
FY2006 EPA appropriations of $7.81 billion, resulting in the net appropriation of
$7.73 billion. The House-passed bill included a similar rescission of previous year
appropriations in the amount of $100.0 million, and the Senate-passed bill included
$58.0 million.
Historically, EPA’s funding had been determined out of the suballocation for
the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development (VA-HUD), and Independent
Agencies subcommittee. Early in the 109th Congress, the House Appropriations
Committee approved a reorganization plan reducing the number of its subcommittees
from 13 to 10. The Senate Appropriations Committee subsequently approved the
elimination of one of its subcommittees, leaving 12. Both reorganizations eliminated
the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies subcommittee, incorporating EPA’s funding
within the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior subcommittee, beginning
with the FY2006 appropriation.
Also earlier in the first session of the 109th Congress, on April 28, 2005, the
House and Senate agreed on the conference report to the FY2006 budget resolution
(H.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 109-62), including budget authority (BA) allocations for the
Natural Resource and Environment Function (300). This function includes several
federal land management agencies and EPA. This concurrent resolution provided the
framework for the consideration of appropriations, and its amounts were
non-binding. The resolution included $30.02 billion (BA) for function 300, however,
as in past years it did not specify funding among the agencies. Rather, specific
funding levels for EPA and other federal agencies were determined in the
appropriations process.
For additional information on the FY2006 federal budget process, see CRS
Report RL32791, Congressional Budget Actions in 2005, and CRS Report RL32812,
The Budget for Fiscal Year 2006.
CRS-4
History and Mission of EPA
The Nixon Administration established EPA in 1970 in response to growing
public concern about environmental pollution, consolidating federal pollution control
responsibilities that had been divided among several agencies. EPA’s responsibilities
have grown as Congress has enacted an increasing number of environmental laws,
as well as major amendments to these statutes, over three decades. Annual
appropriations provide the funds necessary for EPA to carry out its responsibilities
under these laws, such as the regulation of air and water quality, use of pesticides and
toxic substances, management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, and
cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to assist state,
tribal, and local governments in controlling pollution in order to comply with federal
laws. (For discussion of these laws, see CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws:
Summaries of Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency).
Figure 1, below, provides a history of discretionary budget authority for EPA
from FY1970 through FY2006, both adjusted and not adjusted for inflation. EPA’s
funding trends over the history of the agency generally reflect the evolution of
statutory responsibilities and authorities enacted by Congress in response to a range
of environmental concerns. In terms of the overall federal budget, EPA’s annual
appropriation has represented a relatively small portion of total discretionary budget
authority (just under 1% in recent years). EPA’s funding has grown from $1.0 billion
when EPA was established in FY1970 to a high of $8.4 billion in FY2004.
Figure 1. EPA Discretionary Budget Authority FY1970-FY2006:
Adjusted and Not Adjusted for Inflation
(billions of dollars)
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Adjusted for
Not Adjusted
Inflation (2004
for Inflation
dollars)
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on amounts in P.L. 109-54, and data
from the Office of Management and Budget, The Budget of the U.S. Government FY2006: Historical
Tables, Table 5.4 “Discretionary Budget Authority by Agency 1976-2006,” pgs. 95-96, and Table
10.1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables 1940-2009: GDP
(Chained) Price Index,” pp. 184-185. Amounts for FY1970-FY1975 are from The Budget of the U.S.
Government for fiscal years 1972-1977, “Budget Authority and Outlays by Agency” tables.
CRS-5
EPA’s Budget for FY2006 by Appropriations
Account
Traditionally, EPA’s annual appropriation has been requested, considered, and
enacted according to various line-item appropriations accounts, of which there are
currently eight:
! Science and Technology;
! Environmental Programs and Management;
! Office of Inspector General;
! Buildings and Facilities;
! Hazardous Substance Superfund;
! Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program;
! Oil Spill Response; and
! State and Tribal Assistance Grants.
Although Congress appropriates funding for EPA according to the above eight
accounts, EPA also presents its budget request in the form of performance goals, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA, P.L. 103-
62). EPA reduced its number of performance goals from 10 to 5 in its FY2005
budget justification, and the agency has presented its FY2006 justification according
to these same five goals:
! Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change;
! Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water;
! Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration;
! Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems; and
! Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship.
Related to these goals, the Administration also uses OMB’s Performance
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to measure the performance of individual federal
programs. OMB has issued PART ratings for 32 EPA program activities. These
ratings were considered in formulating proposed funding levels for FY2006 within
the various EPA accounts that fund these program activities.6 (For further discussion
of the PART, see CRS Report RS21416, The President’s Management Agenda: A
Brief Introduction.)
Table 1 presents a breakdown of enacted EPA appropriations by each of the
eight accounts for FY2005, the President’s FY2006 request, and action on the
FY2006 appropriations, including an explanation of rescinded previous years’
appropriations used to offset the total FY2006 EPA appropriations. Figure 2
illustrates the portion of the FY2006 request allocated to each account. A more in-
depth discussion of funding for specific activities within each account follows.
6 See OMB’s Budget of the U.S. Government: FY2006, Analytical Perspectives, pp. 29-30.
Available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/spec.pdf].
CRS-6
Table 1. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations Accounts:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)
H.R. 2361
H.R. 2361
FY2005
FY2006
House-
Senate-
Appropriations Account
Enacted
Request
passed
passed
P.L. 109-54a
Science and Technology
$744.1
$760.6
$765.3
$730.8
$741.7
+ transfer from Superfund account
+ $35.8
+ $30.6
+ $30.6
+ $30.6
+ $30.6
Science and Technology Total
$779.9
$791.2
$795.9
$761.4
$772.3
Environmental Programs and Management
$2,294.9
b $2,353.8
b $2,389.5
b $2,333.4
b $2,381.8
Office of Inspector General
$37.7
$37.0
$38.0
$37.0
$37.5
+ transfer from Superfund account
+ $12.9
+ $13.5
+ $13.5
+ $13.5
+ $13.5
Office of Inspector General Total
$50.6
$50.5
$51.5
$50.5
$51.0
Buildings & Facilities
$41.7
$40.2
$40.2
$40.2
$40.2
Hazardous Substance Superfund
$1,247.5
$1,279.3
$1,258.3
$1,256.2
$1,260.6
— transfer to Office of Inspector General
— $12.9
— $13.5
— $13.5
— $13.5
— $13.5
— transfer to Science and Technology
— $35.8
— $30.6
— $30.6
— $30.6
— $30.6
Hazardous Substance Superfund (Net)
$1,198.8
$1,235.2
$1,214.2
$1,212.1
$1,216.5
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program
$69.4
$73.0
$73.0
$73.0
$73.0
Oil Spill Response
$15.9
$15.9
$15.9
$15.9
$15.9
Pesticide registration Fund
$19.2
$15.0
$15.0
$15.0
$15.0
— Pesticide Registration Fees
— $19.2
— $15.0
— $15.0
— $15.0
— $15.0
State and Tribal Assistance Grants: Total
$3,575.3
$2,960.8
$3,127.8
$3,395.6
$3,181.7
Clean Water State Revolving Funds
$1,091.2
$730.0
$850.0
$1,100.0
$900.0
— Funds Previously Appropriated to EPA c
—
—
($100.0)
—
—
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
$843.2
$850.0
$850.0
$850.0
$850.0
Other Grants
$1,640.9
$1,380.8
$1,527.8
$1,503.6
$1,511.7
Funds Previously Appropriated to EPA c
—
—
—
($58.0)
($80.0)
Total EPA Accounts
$8,026.5
$7,520.6
$7,708.0
$7,882.1
$7,732.4
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on amounts indicated in P.L. 109-54, the conference report on H.R.
2361 (H.Rept. 109-188), and the House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 2361 and their accompanying reports (H.Rept. 109-80 and
S.Rept. 109-80, respectively). Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a
Enacted amounts for FY2006 are line items indicated in Title II of P.L. 109-54, which do not reflect reductions made as a result of the
0.476% across-the-board rescission required by Section 439 of Title IV.
b
The President’s FY2006 budget included $50 million in offsetting receipts to be derived from proposed legislative changes to Toxics
and Pesticides fees, which have not been enacted. Neither P.L. 109-54, nor H.R. 2361 as passed by the House or the Senate, included
the $50 million offset.
c The total for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account includes an offset of $80 million per P.L. 109-54 ($58 million in the Senate
bill, and $100 million in the House bill), to be rescinded from prior year EPA appropriations not obligated for contracts, grants, and
inter-agency agreements for which the funding authorization has since expired. P.L. 109-54 did not specify how the $80 million in
rescinded funds would be allocated among EPA activities in FY2006, nor did the Senate specify the allocation of the $58 million in
rescinded funds in passing its version of H.R. 2361. As passed by the House, H.R. 2361 would have allocated $100 million in rescinded
funds for the clean water SRF for FY2006.
CRS-7
Figure 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2006
Appropriations (P.L. 109-54, Title II) by Appropriations Account
(includes transfers between accounts)
Total FY2006 Funding Level = $7.73 billion *
State & Tribal
Leaking Underground
Assistance Grants
Storage Tanks Program
$3.18 billion
$73.0 million
41.1%
0.9%
Hazardous Substances
Inspector General
Superfund
$51.0 mil ion
$1.22 bil ion
0.7%
15.7%
10.0%
Science & Technology
0.5%
$772.3 million
Building & Facilities
$40.2 mil ion
0.2%
Oil Spill Response
30.8%
$15.9 million
Environmental Programs
& Management
$2.38 billion
* P.L. 109-54 includes an $80 million rescission of previous years EPA appropriations
which is an offset in the total EPA appropriations of $7.81 billion for FY2006.
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on information
from P.L. 109-54. Amounts do not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission.
Science and Technology
For FY2006, P.L. 109-54 provides $772.3 million for the Science and
Technology (S&T) account. The total for S&T, prior to the 0.476% across-the-board
rescission, is more than proposed by the Senate, but less than proposed in the
House-passed bill and the FY2006 President’s budget request, and less than the total
Congress appropriated for FY2005. The S&T appropriations in P.L. 109-54 prior to
the rescission, as proposed in both bills and in the FY2006 request, include a transfer
of $30.6 million from the Hazardous Substances Superfund account to support
research related to cleanup of hazardous substances (discussed later in this report).
The FY2005 appropriation included a transfer of $35.8 million from the Superfund
account. Similar transfers have been made in prior year appropriations.
Table 2. Science and Technology Account:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
H.R. 2361
H.R. 2361
Enacted
Request
House-passed
Senate-passed
P.L. 109-54
$779.9
$791.2
$795.9
$761.4
$772.3
Note: The enacted amount for FY2006 does not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission; the
FY2005 enacted amount reflects congressionally mandated rescissions. All amounts indicate net S&T
funding levels, after the transfer of funds from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account.
CRS-8
Incorporating elements of the former Research and Development account in
place until FY1996, the S&T account provides funding for developing the scientific
knowledge and tools necessary to support decisions on preventing, regulating, and
abating environmental pollution. It also supports efforts to advance the base of
understanding for environmental sciences. These activities are conducted through
contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with universities, industries, other
private commercial firms, nonprofit organizations, state and local government, and
federal agencies, as well as through work performed at EPA laboratories and various
field stations and offices. Recent congressional debate regarding the funding for
scientific research administered by EPA and other federal agencies has often focused
on the question of whether these agencies’ actions are based on “sound science,” and
how scientific research is applied in developing federal policy.
Relative to the Administration’s FY2006 request and the FY2005
appropriations, P.L. 109-54 contains significant increases for some activities and
programs within this account, while calling for sizeable decreases or steady funding
in others. The FY2006 request for funding in the S&T account generally reflected
the Administration’s priorities across the various media programs (air, water, etc.)
based, in part, on recent proposed and final rulemakings affecting air quality, and
water quality. The FY2006 request also reflected priorities for broader cross-media
analytical research areas, such as risks to children and other sub-populations.
The following sections discuss funding issues regarding scientific research, and
funding levels for specific research activities administered by EPA for which there
has been ongoing interest among Members of Congress, scientists, stakeholders, and
various interest groups
Human Testing. Section 201 of P.L. 109-54 includes an administrative
provision prohibiting EPA’s use of FY2006 appropriations to conduct or to accept,
consider, or rely on third-party, intentional human dosing studies for pesticides until
the agency issues relevant final rulemaking on the subject. The provision further
stipulates that the final EPA rule will not permit pregnant women, infants, and
children to be used as subjects in such testing, and will be consistent with National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2004 recommendations7 and human experimentation
principles of the Nuremberg Code.8 The provision included in P.L. 109-54 reflects
a combination of a Senate-adopted amendment regarding the rulemaking, and
identical House- and Senate-adopted amendments that would have prohibited EPA’s
use of FY2006 funds to conduct or consider intentional human dosing studies for
pesticides for the entire fiscal year. As reflected in the House and Senate floor debate
(Congressional Record, H3671 and S7552-S7561) and amendments adopted during
7 For more information on EPA’s efforts, as well as a direct link to the National Academy
of Sciences Report “Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes:
Scientific and Ethical Issues,” National Academies Press, Washington DC, see
[http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/guidance/human-test.htm].
8 For a brief description of the Nuremberg Code, see Appendix B of CRS Report RL32909,
Federal Protection for Human Research Subjects: An Analysis of the Common Rule and Its
Interactions with FDA Regulations and the HIPAA Privacy Rule, by Erin D. Williams.
CRS-9
the debates, there is significant interest in Congress regarding EPA’s policies for use
of intentional human dosing studies in regulatory decision making for pesticides.
Some manufacturers, scientists, and Members assert that human dosing studies
provide valuable scientific evidence regarding risks of certain chemicals that can not
be obtained with non-human research. Others recognize the potential value and
validity of such studies but advocate the establishment of strict safeguards and
protocols to protect the health of those subjects participating in such studies. Some
scientists, public interest groups, and other Members counter that, given ethical
questions and potential economic motivation, caution and substantial further
evaluation is needed to ensure that alternative approaches have been exhausted.
Others suggest that purposefully exposing humans is not worth the potential risk
under any circumstances.
Research/Congressional Priorities (Earmarks). In past EPA
appropriations, Congress has set aside or designated funds for individual projects,
locations, or institutions (sometimes referred to as earmarked funding9) within the
various accounts. For FY2006, funding has been reduced below FY2005
appropriations for these types of projects, identified in the conference report as “high
priority projects” within three accounts: S&T, EPM, and STAG (see discussion
regarding the EPM and STAG accounts later in this report). The House
Appropriations Committee had recommended a different approach for allocating
some of this funding, which was not adopted in conference.
EPA’s FY2006 appropriations include $33.3 million within the S&T account
for “research/congressional priorities” (H.Rept. 109-188, p. 100). The House had
proposed $40.0 million, the Senate had proposed $50 million, and the FY2005
appropriations included $65.7 million in the S&T account for these “congressional
priority” projects. The President’s FY2006 request did not include funding for these
projects. Unlike most grant funding, these types of congressional designations have
traditionally been awarded noncompetitively. The conferees did not agree to
competitive solicitation for these projects within the EPM and S&T accounts as
recommended by the House Appropriations Committee in its report (H.Rept. 109-80,
pp. 105-106). Instead, funding was designated for specified projects or locations
within these two accounts in the conference report.
EPA and Homeland Security. FY2006 funding for EPA’s homeland
security activities is allocated within five of the eight EPA appropriations accounts:
S&T, Environmental Programs and Management (EPM), Hazardous Substance
Superfund, Building and Facilities, and STAG. This funding would support various
activities including, critical water infrastructure protection, laboratory preparedness,
decontamination, protection of EPA personnel and operations, and communication.
For the five accounts combined, P.L. 109-54 provides less funding for EPA’s
homeland security activities than requested for FY2006, but, prior to the across-the-
board rescission, more than Congress appropriated for FY2005. Table 3 compares
FY2006 enacted funding for EPA homeland security activities with proposed funding
and FY2005 enacted funding, within the five appropriations accounts.
9 See CRS Report 98-518, Earmarks and Limitations in Appropriations Bills.
CRS-10
Table 3. EPA Homeland Security Activities Funding:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
H.R. 2361 H.R. 2361
EPA Appropriations
FY2005
FY2006
House-
Senate-
Account
Enacted
Request
passed
passed
P.L. 109-54
S&T
$32.8
$93.8
$50.8
$39.6
$50.8
EPM
$20.1
$23.4
$23.4
$21.4
$23.4
Building & Facilities
$11.4
$11.5
$11.5
$11.5
$11.5
Superfund
$36.9
$50.9
$39.4
$38.5
$39.4
STAG
$5.0
$5.0
$5.0
$5.0
$5.0
Total
$106.2
$184.6
$130.1
$116.0
$130.1
Source: Prepared by CRS based on the conference report on H.R. 2361 (H.Rept. 109-188) and the
accompanying reports on the House and Senate versions of the bill (H.Rept. 109-80 and S.Rept. 109-
80). The enacted amounts for FY2006 do not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission; the
FY2005 enacted amounts reflect a congressionally mandated rescission.
The largest single reduction in P.L. 109-54 for EPA’s homeland security
activities relative to the President’s FY2006 budget request is for funding within the
S&T account to support a new water quality surveillance and monitoring project
referred to as the “Water Sentinel Initiative.” The Administration requested $44.0
million within the S&T account for this new initiative for FY2006. P.L. 109-54
provides $9.0 million for this initiative in FY2006, the same as proposed by the
House. The Senate-passed bill would have provided $5.6 million. The scope of the
initiative is unclear based on the substantial reduction in FY2006 funding below the
requested level. The requested funding level would have supported a demonstration
pilot program in five major U.S. cities. This proposed pilot was intended as a
precursor to a new national system for early detection of, and warning for,
“dangerous” chemical and biological contaminants as potential terrorist threats to
public drinking water systems.10 The conference report does not include directives
or comment with regard to EPA’s administering of this initiative at the funding level
provided in P.L. 109-54. In its report (H.Rept. 109-80, p. 94), the House
Appropriations Committee recommended that EPA develop clear goals and
milestones for the Water Sentinel Initiative and justify the request for the program
more clearly for FY2007. The Senate Appropriations Committee report did not
include similar recommendations or comment.
Clean Air Act Research and Implementation (S&T). EPA’s
implementation of and proposed changes to several Clean Air Act provisions, as well
as efforts to address climate change, have been the subject of considerable debate
among various stakeholders and Members of Congress. This has elevated interest
in the level of funding for scientific research needed to understand the adequacy of
air quality standards to protect human health, and the effectiveness of pollution
controls to meet them. Prominent air quality issues include the adequacy of new
ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter, how best to reduce
10 See, Budget of the United States FY2006: Analytical Perspectives, Table 3-1 p. 38, and
Environmental Protection Agency Budget for Fiscal Year 2006: Overview, p. 285.
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/budget.html].
CRS-11
human exposure to mercury, and proposed regulations and legislation regarding the
control of emissions from power plants, vehicles, and other sources. These issues are
again being debated in the 109th Congress. (See CRS Issue Brief IB10137, Clean Air
Act Issues in the 109th Congress; and CRS Report RL32755, Air Quality:
Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109th Congress.)
As indicated in the conference report, the FY2006 EPA appropriations includes
a combined total of $212.4 million within the S&T account for various air quality
programs for FY2006 (H.Rept. 109-188, pp. 148-149). By comparison, for FY2005
Congress appropriated a total of $206.4 million within the S&T account for the
various air quality programs. Funding supports various programmatic
implementation, research, and monitoring activities focusing on air toxics and air
quality, radiation, climate protection, and indoor air quality (including radon).
Funding for FY2006 for these types of activities is also provided in the EPM (see
discussion later in this report) and Superfund accounts, and in the STAG account
primarily to support grants for state, local, and tribal air quality management (see
Table 15 later in this report). Table 4 presents enacted and proposed funding within
the S&T account for several selected program activities.
Table 4. Funding within the S&T Account for Selected EPA
Clean Air Act Activities: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and
Action on Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
H.R. 2361 H.R. 2361
FY2005 FY2006
House-
Senate-
P.L.
Program Activity
Enacted Request
passed
passed
109-54
Federal Vehicle and Fuels
Standards and Certification
$57.4
$66.6
$59.6
$61.4
$59.6
Research: Global Change
$19.6
$20.5
$20.5
$19.6
$19.9
Research: Particulate Matter
$60.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Research: Tropospheric Ozone
$4.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Research: NAAQS
N/A
$71.5
$71.5
$65.4
$69.5
Clean Air Allowance Trading
(see also EPM account)
$8.7
$9.4
$9.4
$8.7
$8.7
Climate Protection Program
(see also EPM account)
$19.0
$17.7
$20.0
$17.7
$19.0
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on the conference report on H.R. 2361
(H.Rept. 109-188) and the accompanying reports on the House and Senate versions of the bill (H.Rept.
109-80 and S.Rept. 109-80). P.L. 109-54 line item amounts do not reflect the 0.476% across-the-
board rescission. FY2005 enacted amounts reflect a congressionally mandated rescission.
Note: For FY2006, EPA proposed to consolidate research on pollutants regulated under the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), such as particulate matter (PM) and tropospheric (ground
level) ozone, into one budget category, which is reflected in the conference, House, and Senate reports.
PM and ozone NAAQS research funds were requested and appropriated as individual line items for
FY2005. Under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(1)), the NAAQS are standards for ambient air
that are intended to protect human health and the environment with an adequate margin of safety.
There are NAAQS for six pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and lead.
CRS-12
In addition, an administrative provision in Section 205 of Title II in P.L. 109-54,
similar to a provision included the Senate-passed bill, would impact a pending EPA
regulation to reduce emissions of new small engines (less than 50 horsepower).11
This provision would prohibit the use of FY2006 appropriated funds in P.L. 109-54
or funds provided in any other act to publish a proposed, or final, small engine
emissions regulation until the agency completes a study of safety issues associated
with compliance, including potential risks of fire and burns to individuals. Existing
state standards for these small engines, currently only in California, would not be
impacted by this provision. This issue was not addressed in the House-passed bill.
Environmental Programs and Management
P.L. 109-54 provides $2.38 billion for the Environmental Programs and
Management (EPM) account for FY2006. The total for the EPM account prior to the
0.476% across-the-board rescission is slightly less than proposed by the House, and
more than proposed by the Senate and the Administration’s request. Congress
appropriated $2.29 billion for the EPM account for FY2005.
Table 5. Environmental Programs and Management Account:
FY2005 Enacted, the FY2006 Request, and
Action on Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
H.R. 2361
H.R. 2361
Enacted
Request
House-passed
Senate-passed
P.L. 109-54
$2,294.9
$2,353.8
$2,389.5
$2,333.4
$2,381.8
Note: The enacted amount for FY2006 does not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission; the
FY2005 enacted amount reflects a congressionally mandated rescission. The FY2006 request includes
$50 million to be derived from changes to chemical and pesticide fees, the authority for which would
require congressional approval through the enactment of legislation.
The EPM account has historically represented roughly one-third of EPA’s
budget. This account reflects the heart of the agency’s regulatory, standard-setting,
and enforcement efforts for various media programs such as water quality, air quality,
and hazardous waste management. Appropriations within the EPM account fund the
development of environmental standards, monitoring and surveillance of pollution
conditions, federal pollution control planning, technical assistance to pollution
control agencies and organizations, and compliance assurance and assistance. Many
complex regulatory/standard setting issues are associated with this account. (See
CRS Issue Brief IB10146, Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress.)
P.L. 109-54 includes increases and decreases within the EPM account for many
program activities relative to the President’s FY2006 budget and the FY2005
appropriations. In some cases, reductions below the President’s request reflect
increases compared to FY2005 appropriations. P.L. 109-54 also includes reductions
in funding for a number of other activities relative to the FY2005 appropriation, as
11 Pursuant to §428(b) of Division G of P. L. 108-199, codified in 40 CFR part 90, subparts
D and E. For more information on EPA’s small non-road engines regulations, see
[http://www.epa.gov/otaq/testingregs.htm].
CRS-13
the Administration requested. In other cases, funding would be restored for FY2006
where the Administration had proposed reductions from FY2005 levels. Some of
these changes and funding levels for selected activities within the EPM account, in
which there has been ongoing interest in Congress, are discussed below.
Brownfields Program Administration. The FY2006 EPA appropriation
includes $25.0 million in the EPM account for administrative expenses of the
Brownfields Program for FY2006. The amount, prior to the 0.476% across-the-board
rescission, is the same as proposed by the Senate. The House proposed $24.6
million; the FY2006 request included $29.6 million; and Congress appropriated
$24.3 million in FY2005. This program provides assistance to states and tribes for
assessment, cleanup, and planning for redevelopment of abandoned, idled, or
underutilized commercial and industrial sites where hazardous contamination may
be present. There has been strong interest among communities in increasing federal
funding for these efforts. The EPM account only funds the administrative expenses
of the Brownfields Program. Grants for cleanup and property redevelopment are
funded out of the STAG account, discussed later in this report.
Environmental Education Program. Per the conference report, the
FY2006 EPA appropriation includes $9.0 million within the EPM account for the
Environmental Education Program for FY2006. Prior to the 0.476% across-the-
board rescission, this funding is the same as proposed by the House and
approximately the same as in FY2005 and FY2004. The Senate-passed bill would
have provided $7.0 million for this program. As in the FY2003, FY2004, and
FY2005 requests, the President’s FY2006 budget request proposed no funding for the
Environmental Education Program. Congress has reinstated the funding for the
program each fiscal year in response to widespread state and local support for these
grants. The Administration used OMB’s measurement of the program’s
effectiveness, the Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART; see discussion
earlier in this report), to justify its proposal to eliminate funding, asserting that the
program has not demonstrated results as determined by the program’s PART rating.
Advocates of the program counter that it has had a positive impact on a national
level, awarding grants to elementary and secondary schools in each of the 50 states
for training teachers, purchasing textbooks, developing curricula, and supporting
other educational activities. (See CRS Report 97-97, National Environmental
Education Act of 1990: Background, Implementation, and Reauthorization Issues.)
Clean Air Act Research and Implementation (EPM). As discussed
earlier in this report under the S&T account heading, EPA’s implementation for
several Clean Air Act provisions, as well as efforts to address climate change, have
been of considerable interest to Members of Congress. FY2006 funding for several
air program activities would be provided within multiple EPA appropriations
accounts, including the EPM account (H.Rept. 109-188, pp. 149-152). The FY2006
EPA appropriation includes a combined total of $313.5 million within the EPM
account for various air quality programs for FY2006 (H.Rept. 109-188, pp. 149-152).
In comparison, for FY2005 Congress appropriated a total of $298.3 million within
the S&T account for the various air quality programs. Table 6 presents enacted and
proposed funding within the EPM accounts for several selected program activities.
CRS-14
Table 6. Funding Within the EPM Account for Selected
EPA Clean Air Act Activities: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request,
and Action on Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
H.R. 2361 H.R. 2361
FY2005 FY2006
House-
Senate-
P.L.
Program Activity
Enacted Request
passed
passed
109-54
Methane to Markets Program
$0.3
$4.0
$0.5
$3.0
$2.0
Federal Stationary Sources
$21.8
$23.5
$23.5
$23.5
$23.5
Energy STAR
$46.7
$50.5
$50.0
$50.5
$50.5
Clean Air Allowance Trading
(see also S&T account)
$16.9
$18.2
$18.2
$18.2
$18.2
Climate Protection Program
(see also S&T account)
$43.9
$41.0
$41.0
$41.0
$41.0
Clean Diesel Program
$0.0
$15.0
$10.0
$0.0
$5.0
Federal Support for Air Quality
Management (not including the
Clean Diesel Program)
(see also S&T)
$88.2
$95.9
$95.9
$88.2
$90.9
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on the conference report on H.R. 2361
(H.Rept. 109-188) and the accompanying reports on the House and Senate versions of the bill (H.Rept.
109-80 and S.Rept. 109-80). P.L. 109-54 line item amounts do not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board
rescission. FY2005 enacted amounts reflect a congressionally mandated rescission.
Pesticide Registration and Chemical Manufacturing Fees. The
President’s FY2006 budget included $50.0 million in the form of “anticipated”
revenues (offsetting receipts) to be derived from changes to fees for pesticide
registrations and for toxic chemical notices.12 P.L. 109-54, as well as the House- and
Senate-passed bills, did not include these anticipated revenues. Of the $50.0 million
revenue proposed in the President’s FY2006 budget, $46.0 million would have been
derived from pesticide registration fees, and $4.0 million from notices for new
chemicals (chemicals not currently manufactured or imported for commerce in the
United States).13 The proposed fee changes in the request would require
congressional approval through the enactment of legislation. In its report, the House
Appropriations Committee noted that no relevant legislation had been proposed and
commented that EPA should not continue to spend time and resources proposing
such actions in conflict with current authority (H.Rept. 109-80, p. 105-106).
The pesticide fees proposed by the Administration for FY2006 would be in
addition to those currently authorized under the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
FY2004 (P.L. 108-199). The pesticide fees provisions in Section G, Title V of P.L.
108-199 are referred to as the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA). Also
in PRIA, Congress rescinded EPA’s authority to collect other pesticide registration
12 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Major Savings and
Reforms in the President’s 2006 Budget, pp. 222-224. Available online at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006].
13 Section 26(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act authorizes fees to cover part of the cost
to review pre-manufacturing notices.
CRS-15
fees.14 Title II of P.L. 109-54 includes an administrative provision authorizing the
Administrator of EPA to collect and obligate pesticide registration service fees for
FY2006 in accordance with Section 33 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (as added by Subsection (f)(2) of the PRIA), as amended. For
additional information regarding pesticide registration and tolerance fees, see CRS
Report RL32218, Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees: Overview.
Earlier in the first session of the 109th Congress, language contained in the
FY2005 supplemental appropriations for military funding, enacted May 11, 2005
(Sec. 6033 of P.L. 109-13), banned EPA from going forward with rulemaking for
collecting pesticide tolerance fees as rescinded by PRIA. The 108th Congress rejected
the President’s FY2005 budget proposal to reinstate pesticide fees as prohibited in
PRIA in the conference report on the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005
(H.Rept. 108-792, Administrative Provisions, p. 1597).
Environmental Protection/Congressional Priorities (Earmarks). As
discussed earlier in this report, FY2006 funding set aside or designated by Congress
for individual projects, locations, or institutions (“earmarked funding”) has been
reduced below FY2005 appropriations. The funding for these projects, identified in
the conference report (H.Rept. 109-188) as “high priority projects,” is provided in the
EPM, S&T, and STAG accounts (see discussion regarding earmarks in the S&T and
STAG accounts elsewhere in this report). EPA’s FY2006 appropriation includes
$50.5 million within the EPM account for “environmental protection/congressional
priorities.” The House had proposed $40.0 million, the Senate had proposed $50
million, and the FY2005 appropriations included $92.3 million in the EPM account
for these “congressional priority” projects. The President’s FY2006 request did not
include funding for these projects. The conferees did not agree to a House
Appropriations Committee recommendation to require competitive solicitations for
these projects within EPM and S&T (H.Rept. 109-80, pp. 105-106), instead
designating funding for specified projects or locations in the conference report
(H.Rept. 109-188, pp. 102-103).
Geographic/Ecosystem Programs. The EPM account includes funding
for several geographic/ecosystem programs to address certain environmental and
human health risks. Members of Congress have expressed ongoing interest in the
funding and oversight of these programs, as they potentially affect sizeable
populations across many states. These programs often involve collaboration among
EPA, state and local governments, communities, and non-profit organizations.
Enacted and proposed funding for selected geographic/ecosystem programs are
shown in Table 7.
14 In P.L. 108-199, Congress suspended authority for the collection of fees for establishing
tolerances (maximum allowable limits of pesticides in food; “tolerance fees”), and continued
the prohibition of collecting registration fees using other pre-existing authority (40 C.F.R.
152(u) and 172).
CRS-16
Table 7. Funding for Selected Geographic/Ecosystem
Programs: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on
Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
H.R. 2361 H.R. 2361
Geographic/Ecosystem
FY2005 FY2006
House-
Senate-
P.L.
Program
Enacted Request
passed
passed
109-54
National Estuary Program
$24.8
$19.4
$24.4
$21.0
$24.4
Great Lakes Legacy Act
$22.3
$50.0
$28.0
$30.0
$30.0
Great Lakes Program
$21.3
$21.5
$21.5
$22.0
$21.5
Lake Champlain Basin Program
$ 2.5
$ 1.0
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
Chesapeake Bay Program
$22.6
$20.7
$20.7
$23.0
$21.5
Gulf of Mexico Program
$ 4.4
$ 4.5
$ 4.5
$ 5.0
$ 5.0
Long Island Sound Program
$ 2.3
$ 0.5
$ 2.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
Puget Sound
$ 0.0
$0.0
$ 2.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.0
Other Geographic Programs
$ 6.9
$13.2
$ 7.2
$ 7.8
$ 8.8
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on the conference report on H.R. 2361
(H.Rept. 109-188) and the accompanying reports on the House and Senate versions of the bill (H.Rept.
109-80 and S.Rept. 109-80), and EPA’s FY2006 budget justification. P.L. 109-54 line item amounts
do not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission. FY2005 enacted amounts reflect a
congressionally mandated rescission.
Funding for the restoration of the Great Lakes has been of particular interest to
many Members. As Table 7 above indicates, P.L. 109-54 provides funding
significantly less than the FY2006 request, but more than the FY2005 appropriation,
to aid in the cleanup of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes, as authorized by
the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (Title I of P.L. 107-303).15 Although no specific
comments regarding the Legacy program are included in the conference report
(H.Rept. 109-188), the House Appropriations Committee recommended EPA
develop a clear plan for implementing the Legacy Act specifying how funding will
support this plan in future budget requests (H.Rept. 109-80, p. 106). The primary
purpose of this funding is to address persistently high concentrations of contaminants
in the sediments of rivers and harbors, which have prompted concern about potential
risk to aquatic organisms, wildlife, and humans.
Office of Inspector General
Including transfers from the Superfund account, P.L. 109-54 provides $51.0
million for EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) for FY2006. The total amount,
prior to the rescission, includes a transfer of $13.5 million to the OIG account from
the Superfund account (as proposed in both bills and requested by the
15 The act authorized a total of $270 million in funding from FY2004 through FY2008 ($54
million annually) to aid in the remediation of contaminated sediments in “areas of concern
(AOCs) located wholly or partially in the United States.” For information regarding EPA’s
Great Lakes Strategy, Great Lakes Task Force, and other efforts to address issues in the
Great Lakes Basin, see [http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/].
CRS-17
Administration) for investigative oversight of that program, similar to previous year
appropriations. The FY2005 appropriation included a $12.9 million transfer. The
FY2006 appropriation for the EPA OIG, prior to the 0.476% across-the-board
rescission, is similar to that proposed by the House and Senate, to the
Administration’s FY2006 request, and to the amount appropriated by Congress for
FY2005. The OIG performs EPA audit and investigative functions to identify and
recommend corrective actions of management, program, and administrative
deficiencies, which may create conditions for instances of fraud, waste, and
mismanagement of funds.
Table 8. Office of Inspector General Account:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
H.R. 2361
H.R. 2361
Enacted
Request
House-passed
Senate-passed
P.L. 109-54
$50.6
$50.5
$51.5
$50.5
$51.0
Note: The enacted amount for FY2006 does not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission; the
FY2005 enacted amount reflects a congressionally mandated rescission. All amounts are net Office
of Inspector General funding, after transfer of funds from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account.
Buildings and Facilities
P.L. 109-54 provides $40.2 million for the Buildings and Facilities account,
which prior to the 0.476% across-the-board rescission is the same as proposed by the
Senate, the House, and the President’s FY2006 budget. Congress appropriated $41.7
million for FY2005. This account funds repairs, improvements, extensions, or
alterations of buildings, facilities, or fixed equipment. It also funds new construction
projects.
Table 9. Buildings and Facilities Account:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
H.R. 2361
H.R. 2361
Enacted
Request
House-passed
Senate-passed
P.L. 109-54
$41.7
$40.2
$40.2
$40.2
$40.2
Note: The enacted amount for FY2006 does not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission; the
FY2005 enacted amount reflects a congressionally mandated rescission. The FY2005 appropriation
total includes $3.0 million within the B&F account, provided by the Military Construction
Appropriations and Emergency Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2005 (P.L. 108-324),
for expenses related to natural disasters pursuant to requirements of the statute. (See CRS Report
RL32581: Assistance After Hurricanes and Other Disasters: FY2004 and FY2005 Supplemental
Appropriations.)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
P.L. 109-54 provides $1.26 billion for the Superfund account for FY2006. Prior
to the 0.476% across-the-board rescission, the amount is similar to that proposed by
the House and Senate, and less than the Administration’s FY2006 request. Congress
appropriated $1.25 billion for FY2005. P.L. 109-54 transfers (subject to the
CRS-18
rescission) $30.6 million from the Superfund account to the Science and Technology
account, and $13.5 million to the Office of Inspector General, as proposed by the
House, the Senate, and the Administration’s request. After the transfer of these
funds, P.L. 109-54 provides a net amount of $1.22 billion for the Superfund account.
An amendment introduced during the House floor debate, but not adopted, would
have provided an additional $130 million for the Superfund account through an
offsetting reduction within the S&T account. Table 10 indicates net funding for the
Superfund account after the transfer of funds.
Table 10. Hazardous Substance Superfund Account:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
H.R. 2361
H.R. 2361
Enacted
Request
House-passed
Senate-passed
P.L. 109-54
$1,198.8
$1,235.2
$1,214.2
$1,212.1
$1,216.5
Note: The enacted amount for FY2006 does not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission; the
FY2005 enacted amount reflects a congressionally mandated rescission. All amounts indicate net
Superfund funding levels, after the transfer of funds to the accounts for Science and Technology and
the Office of Inspector General.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA)16 created the Superfund program to clean up the nation’s worst
hazardous waste sites, and directed EPA to prepare a National Priorities List (NPL)
to identify sites that present the greatest risk to human health and the environment.
The Superfund account in EPA’s budget funds the agency’s efforts to remove
contamination that presents an immediate risk, and to remediate contamination for
which there is a potential pathway of exposure. This account also funds EPA’s
efforts to enforce CERCLA and to require potentially responsible parties (PRPs),
including federal facilities, to remediate contamination. The Superfund account pays
for the cleanup when there is no financially viable party at private sector sites. The
costs of remediation at federal facilities are paid by the federal agency that caused the
contamination, rather than out of the Superfund account.
Among the major concerns associated with the Superfund account is whether
the funding level is adequate to meet cleanup needs and protect human health and the
environment. The pace of cleanup has been an ongoing issue. Some Members of
Congress have asserted that steady funding for the Superfund program is sufficient
to meet cleanup needs. Other Members, states, environmental organizations, and
communities have countered that more funding is needed to maintain an adequate
pace of cleanup. Completing the construction of cleanup remedies at a site is often
used as a measure of the pace of cleanup, because in many cases, construction of
such remedies must be finished before operation can begin to treat or contain waste
as a means to prevent exposure. EPA reports that the FY2006 request would allow
the construction of 40 remedial actions to be completed at Superfund sites in
FY2006, lower than the annual average of about 67 over the past five years.
16 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.
CRS-19
The most recent estimate of funding needs for the Superfund program was
released in 2001 in a study by Resources for the Future (RFF), a private organization.
Congress had directed EPA to fund this study, titled Superfund’s Future: What Will
It Cost? RFF estimated that between $14 billion and $16 billion in total funding
would be necessary from FY2000 through FY2009 to meet cleanup needs, based on
the number of NPL sites and severity of contamination at that time. At a minimum,
RFF projected that annual expenditures of $1.5 billion would be necessary through
FY2006 to maintain an adequate pace of cleanup. Annual appropriations in recent
years have been around $1.25 billion, prior to transfers. As noted above, Congress
has appropriated $1.26 billion for the Superfund account for FY2006, prior to
transfers to other accounts and the rescission.
The source of funding for the Superfund program also has been an ongoing
issue. P.L. 109-54 funds the Superfund program with general Treasury revenues in
FY2006, as proposed in the House- and Senate-passed bills and the Administration’s
request. Three dedicated taxes (on petroleum, chemical feedstocks, and corporate
income) historically provided the majority of funding for the Superfund program.
However, these taxes expired at the end of 1995, and the remaining revenues were
essentially expended by the end of FY2003. Since then, Congress has funded the
program with general Treasury revenues. Some Members advocate reinstating the
Superfund taxes, and argue that the use of general Treasury revenues to fund cleanup
costs undermines the “polluter pays” principle, spreading cleanup costs across all
taxpayers. Other Members and the Administration counter that financially viable
parties still pay for the cleanup, and that polluters are therefore not escaping their
responsibility. In recent years, EPA has stated that approximately 70% of sites on the
NPL are cleaned up by responsible parties. (See CRS Report RL31410, Superfund
Taxes or General Revenues: Future Funding Options for the Superfund Program.)
Cleanup and redevelopment activities at Brownfields were funded within the
Superfund account until FY2003, but funding for this activity is now provided within
the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account and the Environmental
Programs and Management (EPM) account (see discussion under the STAG and
EPM accounts elsewhere in this report).
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program
P.L. 109-54 provides $73.0 million for FY2006 for the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) Program account. Prior to the 0.476% across-the-board
rescission, the enacted appropriation for the LUST account is the same as proposed
by the House and Senate, and the Administration’s request. Congress appropriated
$69.4 million for FY2005. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA)17 established the LUST Trust Fund to help EPA and states cover the
costs of responding to releases from leaking underground storage tanks containing
petroleum when no responsible party performs the cleanup. The trust fund is used
primarily to implement the LUST program through state cooperative agreement
grants, to oversee and enforce corrective actions by responsible parties, and to
recover expended funds used to clean up abandoned tank sites. Roughly 80% of the
17 P.L. 99-499, Title V.
CRS-20
appropriated amount goes to the states. (For further discussion, see CRS Report
RS21201, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Program Status and Issues.)
Table 11. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program Account:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
H.R. 2361
H.R. 2361
Enacted
Request
House-passed
Senate-passed
P.L. 109-54
$69.4
$73.0
$73.0
$73.0
$73.0
Note: The enacted amount for FY2006 does not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission; the
FY2005 enacted amount reflects a congressionally mandated rescission.
Although the balance of the LUST Trust Fund exceeds $2 billion, appropriations
have been around $70 million in recent years. Many state LUST programs report that
they are understaffed and underfunded. States have asked Congress to provide more
funds from the LUST Trust Fund to help them address more than 412,000 cleanups
that are ongoing, and another 128,000 leaking tank sites that require remediation.
Additionally, the presence of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) at many LUST sites
is increasing the cost and complexity of cleaning up these sites. (See CRS Report
RL32787, MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking Water Issues.)
Oil Spill Response
P.L. 109-54 provides $15.9 million for FY2006 for EPA’s Oil Spill Response
account. The enacted appropriation prior to the 0.476% across-the-board rescission
is the same as proposed by the House, Senate, and Administration’s FY2006 request,
and slightly less than the FY2005 appropriation (differences are not reflected in the
table below due to rounding). While the U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for
responding to oil spills in coastal and inland navigable waterways, EPA is
responsible for responding to spills that occur on the land as a result of leaking
pipelines, accidents in transport, or other events. Appropriations in this account only
fund EPA’s oil spill response activities. In recent years, EPA has reported that it
responds to approximately 300 oil spills annually. EPA is reimbursed for site-
specific response expenses from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is
administered by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Table 12. Oil Spill Response Account:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
H.R. 2361
H.R. 2361
Enacted
Request
House-passed
Senate-passed
P.L. 109-54
$15.9
$15.9
$15.9
$15.9
$15.9
Note: The enacted amount for FY2006 does not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission; the
FY2005 enacted amount reflects a congressionally mandated rescission.
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
P.L. 109-54 provides $3.18 billion for FY2006, subject to the 0.476% across-
the-board rescission, for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account.
CRS-21
The House proposed $3.13 billion, and the Senate proposed $3.40 billion. The
Administration requested $2.96 billion for FY2006, and Congress appropriated $3.58
billion for FY2005. P.L. 109-54 also “rescinds” $80.0 million from past fiscal year
appropriations. The rescissions of previous years’ appropriations are to be taken from
grants, contracts, and interagency agreements for various program activities, whose
availability under their original agreements has expired. Although the provision is
included in the STAG account, the conference report (H.Rept. 109-188, p.112)
emphasizes that it applies to all EPA appropriations accounts. The House and Senate
proposed varying provisions for rescinding previous year appropriations, which
differed from the conference agreement.
Table 13. State and Tribal Assistance Grants Account:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2005
FY2006
H.R. 2361
H.R. 2361
Enacted
Request
House-passed
Senate-passed
P.L. 109-54
$3,575.3
$2,960.8
$3,127.8
$3,395.6
$3,181.7
Note: The enacted amount for FY2006 does not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission; the
FY2005 enacted amount reflects a congressionally mandated rescission. Within the STAG account,
P.L. 109-54 and both versions of H.R. 2361 included differing amounts to be rescinded from prior
year EPA appropriations not obligated for contracts, grants, and inter-agency agreements for which
the funding authorization has since expired: $80 million in P.L. 109-54, $58 million in the Senate, and
$100 million in the House.
Unlike the House-passed bill, neither the text of P.L. 109-54 nor the conference
report specifies redirecting the rescinded previous appropriations for specific EPA
activities for FY2006. The House-passed bill had specified that a rescission of
$100.0 million in unobligated funds from past appropriations be used for increasing
support for the clean water state revolving fund (SRF) under the STAG account (see
the discussion under “State Revolving Funds” in this section of the report). The
Senate-passed bill included $58.0 million in “rescinded” previous year funds within
the STAG account but, like the final bill, did not specify its allocation for FY2006.
Historically, the STAG account has represented the largest portion of EPA’s
annual appropriation, and has comprised about 40% of the agency’s total budget in
recent years. The majority of the funding within the account is for SRFs for water
infrastructure projects. There are separate SRFs for clean water and drinking water
projects. The clean water SRF provides funds for wastewater infrastructure, such as
municipal sewage treatment plants. The drinking water SRF provides funds for
drinking water treatment facilities and other projects needed to comply with federal
drinking water requirements. The remainder of the STAG account funds other water
infrastructure grants, categorical grants to states and tribes for numerous pollution
control activities, grants for the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields, and
grants for clean school buses. Selected funding issues regarding activities within the
STAG account are discussed below.
State Revolving Funds. P.L. 109-54 provides $900.0 million for the clean
water SRF for FY2006, subject to the 0.476% across-the-board rescission. The
Senate-passed bill would have provided $1.1 billion, and the House-passed bill
CRS-22
would have provided $850.0 million. The President’s FY2006 request was $730.0
million, and Congress appropriated $1.09 billion for FY2005. As noted above, the
House total for the clean water SRF included $100.0 million in the form of redirected
unobligated balances from past EPA appropriations. P.L. 109-54 provides $850.0
million for the drinking water SRF prior to the rescission, the same as the House- and
Senate-passed bills and the President’s FY2006 request. For FY2005, Congress
appropriated $843.2 million for the drinking water SRF. Together, these funds
provide seed monies for state loans to communities for construction and upgrading
of wastewater and drinking water infrastructure in order to meet federal requirements.
Table 14. Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
H.R. 2361 H.R. 2361
FY2005
FY2006
House-
Senate-
P.L.
SRF
Enacted
Request
passed
passed
109-54
Clean Water
$1,091.2
$730.0
$850.0
$1,100.0
$900.0
Drinking Water
$843.2
$850.0
$850.0
$850.0
$850.0
Use of Rescinded Funds
—
—
($100.0)
—
—
Total New Appropriations
$1,934.4
$1,580.0
$1,600.0
$1,950.0
$1,750.0
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on the conference report on H.R. 2361
(H.Rept. 109-188) and the accompanying reports on the House and Senate versions of the bill (H.Rept.
109-80 and S.Rept. 109-80). The enacted amount for FY2006 does not reflect the 0.476%
across-the-board rescission; the FY2005 enacted amount reflects a congressionally mandated
rescission. As passed by the House, H.R. 2361 included a total of $1.7 billion for both SRFs
combined, including $1.6 billion in new appropriations and $100 million in unobligated funds from
expired contracts, grants, and interagency agreements rescinded from previously appropriated EPA
funds.
The adequacy of the funding level for both SRFs has been contentious. In
recent years, Congress has appropriated significantly more funding than the
Administration has requested for the clean water SRF. There has been less
disagreement between Congress and the Administration about the appropriate
funding level for the drinking water SRF. Some Members have advocated
substantial increases for both SRFs in response to local water infrastructure needs
generally, and more specifically, to help communities comply with new standards for
drinking water contaminants (e.g., arsenic and radium).
Two amendments to further increase funding for the clean water SRF were
introduced during the House floor debate on H.R. 2361. One amendment, which
would have increased the clean water SRF by $500 million, was rejected on a point
of order. A second amendment would have increased funding by $100 million, but
was not adopted. At the close of the House floor debate, the House did not agree to
a motion to recommit the bill to the House Appropriations Committee to provide an
additional $242 million for the clean water SRF (Cong. Rec. H3674). An
amendment introduced during the Senate debate that would have modified the
formula for distributing SRF funds to the states was withdrawn. Earlier this year, in
agreeing to the FY2006 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 18), the Senate agreed to a
floor amendment recommending $1.35 billion for the clean water SRF in FY2006.
The amendment was not included in the final FY2006 budget resolution (H.Con.Res.
CRS-23
95). As noted above, H.R. 2361, as passed by the Senate, would have provided $1.1
billion in FY2006 for the clean water SRF.
Numerous studies have estimated the future capital needs for water
infrastructure. EPA issued its most recent needs survey for the construction of
wastewater treatment facilities in August 2003, estimating remaining needs at a total
of $181 billion nationwide over the long-term.18 EPA’s latest drinking water needs
survey, released in June 2005, projected that public drinking water systems need to
invest $277 billion over 20 years. Some stakeholder groups have projected higher
funding needs than those estimated by EPA. In 2000, the Water Infrastructure
Network (WIN), a coalition of state, municipal, environmental and labor groups,
issued a report entitled, Clean and Safe Water for the 21st Century. This report
estimated total wastewater and drinking water capital needs to be $940 billion over
the next 20 years, even more if operation and maintenance needs are included (which
currently are not eligible for federal assistance). Of the $940 billion amount, WIN
estimates that 20-year capital funding needs for wastewater are about $460 billion
and for drinking water are about $480 billion. WIN foresees a $23 billion per year
funding gap between needs and current spending: $12 billion for wastewater and $11
billion for drinking water.
Special Project Grants. Another issue is the extent to which funding should
be earmarked for water infrastructure projects in specific communities, rather than
provided competitively through the SRFs. Whereas communities compete for loan
funds provided through the SRFs, which must be repaid, earmarked funding is
awarded noncompetitively as grants that require matching funds, but not repayment.
As in recent appropriations, P.L. 109-54 includes provisions within the STAG
account limiting the amount of special project grants to 55% of a project’s total cost,
requiring the recipient to provide a 45% match. EPA is also authorized to waive the
matching funds requirement in certain circumstances, if providing the non-federal
match would place an onerous financial burden on the recipient. Whether the needs
of these communities should be met with SRF loan monies or grant assistance has
become controversial. (See CRS Report RL32201, Water Infrastructure Project
Earmarks in EPA Appropriations: Trends and Policy Implications.)
P.L. 109-54 provides $200.0 million for special project grants in the STAG
account for FY2006. Prior to the 0.476% across-the-board rescission, the amount for
these projects is the same as proposed by both the House- and Senate-passed bills.
These projects, referred to in the conference report as “STAG infrastructure
grants/congressional priorities,” include wastewater, drinking water, and storm water
infrastructure projects (H.Rept. 109-188, pp. 106-112). For FY2005, Congress
designated (earmarked) $309.5 million within the STAG account for specified
18 The survey did not provide a uniform planning horizon because of variability in
community planning horizons across the country. The reported aggregate “needs” estimate
represents a summary of capital expenditures that might be made at different points in time
over a multi-year time frame. EPA, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000:Report to
Congress, August 2003, EPA-832-R-03-001, at [http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.
htm.]
CRS-24
projects. As in past years, the President’s FY2006 budget did not include funding for
these projects.
In reporting its version of the FY2006 bill, the House Appropriations Committee
did not allocate the recommended funding among specific community projects, as
has been the practice in past years by both the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees. The House committee commented in its report that the allocation of
these funds would be determined later in conference. The Senate Appropriations
Committee designated funding for specific projects in its report.
Other Water Infrastructure Grants. As in recent years, the Administration
requested funding for water infrastructure grants in three geographic-specific areas,
in addition to funding for the SRFs for which communities compete. The amounts
provided by P.L. 109-54 for these grants, subject to the 0.476% across-the-board
rescission, include:
! $50 million for wastewater infrastructure projects along the
U.S./Mexico border, the same as in both bills and requested, and
nearly the same as the FY2005 appropriation;
! $35 million for the construction of wastewater and drinking water
facilities in Alaska Native Villages, compared to $15 million
proposed by the House and the Administration’s request, and $40
million proposed by the Senate, all of which are less than the
FY2005 appropriation of nearly $45 million; and
! No funding for drinking water infrastructure improvements to the
Metropolitano community water system in San Juan, Puerto Rico,
the same as the Senate, and compared to $4.0 million in the House-
passed bill, the same as requested and almost the same as the
FY2005 appropriation.
Categorical Grants. P.L. 109-54 provides $1.13 billion to support state and
tribal “categorical” grant programs within the STAG account, subject to the 0.476%
rescission. The House-passed bill would have provided $1.15 billion, and the
Senate-passed bill $1.12 billion. The FY2006 request included $1.18 billion, and
Congress appropriated $1.14 billion for FY2005. EPA categorical funds are
generally distributed through multiple grants to support various activities within a
particular media program (air, water, hazardous waste, etc.). These grants are used
by states to support the day-to-day implementation of environmental laws, including
a range of activities such as monitoring, permitting and standard setting, training, and
other pollution control and prevention activities. Grant funding is also used for
multimedia projects such as pollution prevention incentive grants, pesticides and
toxic substances enforcement, the tribal general assistance program, and
environmental information.
EPA’s FY2006 budget justification presented 23 individual categorical grant
programs in six sub-categories: air and radiation, water quality, drinking water,
CRS-25
hazardous waste, pesticide and toxic substances, and multimedia.19 Examples of
grants within these subcategories include air quality grants to support fine particulate
matter (PM ) monitoring and data collection, water quality grants to support
2.5
implementation of non-point source management programs, grant assistance for
development and implementation of hazardous waste programs, pesticide program
implementation and pesticide enforcement, and pollution prevention incentive grants.
Table 15 indicates enacted and proposed funding for each of the six subcategories
of grant programs.
Table 15. Funding for Categorical Grants:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
H.R. 2361
H.R. 2361
National Program
FY2005
FY2006
House-
Senate-
P.L. 109-54
Sub-Category
Enacted
Request
passed
passed
Air & Radiation
$240.9
$242.8
$242.8
$241.5
$242.2
Water Quality
$476.7
$486.0
$490.0
$465.3
$470.8
Drinking Water
$115.4
$116.6
$116.6
$115.4
$115.7
Hazardous Waste
$165.0
$176.4
$166.4
$165.4
$165.4
Pesticides & Toxics
$ 50.6
$ 50.9
$ 50.9
$ 50.9
$ 50.9
Multimedia
$ 88.1
$108.8
$ 84.8
$ 84.0
$ 84.8
Total
$1,136.7
$1,181.5
$1,151.5
$1,122.5
$1,129.8
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on the conference report on H.R. 2361
(H.Rept. 109-188) and the accompanying reports on the House and Senate versions of the bill (H.Rept.
109-80 and S.Rept. 109-80), the conference report on the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
FY2005 (P.L. 108-447, H.Rept. 108-792), and EPA’s FY2006 budget justification, State and Tribal
Assistant Grants Tables, p. STAG-14. The line item amounts for FY2006 do not reflect the 0.476%
across-the-board rescission; the FY2005 line item amounts a reflect congressionally mandated
rescission. The Hazardous Waste category includes funding for Brownfields categorical grants. Totals
may not add due to rounding.
Within the multimedia categorical grants in the STAG account, neither P.L.
109-54 nor the House and Senate-passed bills provided the $23.0 million included
in the Administration’s FY2006 request for a new competitive grant program to
support “results-oriented” environmental protection work. According to the EPA
FY2006 budget justification, the grants referred to as “State and Tribal Performance
Fund” were intended to help states and tribes “measure, document and improve the
results of their environmental protection programs.” The Administration proposed
the same amount of funding for this new grant program in its FY2005 budget request,
but Congress did not appropriate any funding for it.
Brownfields Grants. P.L. 109-54 provides a total of $165.0 million for
FY2006 for EPA’s Brownfields Program. Prior to the 0.476% across-the-board
rescission, the total is the same as proposed in the Senate-passed bill. The
19 For detailed descriptions for the individual grant programs, see U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency FY2006 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on
Appropriations (EPA-205/R-05-001), at [http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/budget/htm].
CRS-26
House-passed bill would have provided $172.1 million, the Administration requested
$210.1 million, and Congress appropriated $163.2 million for FY2005. This
program provides assistance to states and tribes for the cleanup and redevelopment
of abandoned, idled, or underutilized commercial and industrial sites. Funding for
the Brownfields program is currently provided within the STAG account for grants
to states and tribes for environmental cleanup and redevelopment. Funding for
EPA’s expenses to administer the program is provided within the EPM account, as
discussed earlier in this report. Table 16 indicates enacted and proposed funding
within the STAG and EPM account for the Brownfields program. EPA had funded
the program out of the Superfund account until FY2003.
Table 16. Brownfields Funding:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
Account/
FY2005
FY2006
H.R. 2361
H.R. 2361
Activity
Enacted
Request House-passed Senate-passed
P.L. 109-54
STAG:
Infrastructure
$89.3
$120.5
$97.5
$90.0
$90.0
Categorical
$49.6
$60.0
$50.0
$50.0
$50.0
EPM:
Administrative
$24.3
$29.6
$24.6
$25.0
$25.0
Total
$163.2
$210.1
$172.1
$165.0
$165.0
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on the conference report on H.R.
2361 (H.Rept. 109-188) and the accompanying reports on the House and Senate versions of the bill
(H.Rept. 109-80 and S.Rept. 109-80). The enacted amounts for FY2006 do not reflect the 0.476%
across-the-board rescission; the FY2005 enacted amounts reflect a congressionally mandated
rescission.
P.L. 109-54 includes an administrative provision that expands eligibility for
program grants or loans to include those who purchased property prior to the
enactment of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfield Revitalization Act
of 2001 (P.L. 107-118). This provision is similar to those included in the House- and
Senate-passed bills and in recent appropriations bills for the past several fiscal years.
The provision applies only to FY2006, and does not provide permanent authority,
which was proposed by the Senate. P.L. 109-54 does not include language providing
authority to use a portion of brownfields site characterizations and assessment grants
for “reasonable” administrative expenses. The Senate had proposed permanent
authority for the use of grant funding for this purpose.
Clean School Bus Initiative. P.L. 109-54 provides $7.0 million, subject to
the 0.476% across-the-board rescission, within the STAG account20 for FY2006 to
fund cost-share grants for the Clean School Bus Initiative.21 The House-passed bill
would have provided $10 million, the same as the Administration’s request. The
Senate-passed bill would have provided $1 million, and Congress appropriated just
20 Congress provided the FY2004 appropriation for this initiative within the Environmental
Programs and Management (EPM) account, rather than the STAG account.
21 For information on Clean School Bus grants for FY2005 and prior years, see EPA’s
website at [http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus].
CRS-27
over $7 million for FY2005. Although the funding level for this program is relatively
small compared to other grant programs supported within the STAG account, there
has been strong interest among states and local school districts seeking grants to
retrofit or replace older, polluting diesel buses.
From its initial grant solicitation, EPA received more than 120 proposals from
school districts, state and local agencies, and nonprofit organizations. These
proposals sought a total of $60 million in grants, which significantly exceeded
appropriations of $5 million each year in FY2003 and FY2004. In response to the
amount of funding sought by grant applicants, EPA had requested $65 million for the
program in FY2005 to expand its support of diesel retrofit projects to reduce
particulate matter, and for outreach efforts to raise awareness of the health risks
posed to school children from diesel emissions. As noted above, Congress provided
significantly less than this amount for FY2005, and the Administration followed by
substantially reducing its request for FY2006.
Conclusion
Overall, P.L. 109-54, like the House- and Senate-passed bills, provides more
funding for EPA for FY2006 than the President’s FY2006 request, but less than
appropriated the previous fiscal year. As in past years, the State and Tribal
Assistance Grants (STAG) account represents the largest portion of EPA’s
appropriation for FY2006, and the adequacy of funding for this account has been
among the most prominent issues of debate. The Administration’s request to
significantly reduce funding for the clean water state revolving fund (SRF) within
the STAG account from $1.09 billion in FY2005 to $730 million in FY2006 was
particularly contentious.
Prior to the 0.476% across-the-board rescission, P.L. 109-54 provides $900
million for the clean water SRF, a $170 million increase above the $730 million
requested. Most of the increase would be made available primarily by reducing
funding for other activities. Amendments during the House debate to potentially
bring the FY2006 funding for the clean water SRF closer to the FY2005 level were
not adopted. The House-passed bill would have provided $850 million, including
$100 million rescinded from previous years’ appropriations. The Senate-passed bill
would have provided $1.1 billion, slightly more than the $1.09 billion appropriated
for FY2005.
The extent to which Congress should designate (earmark) funds for individual
projects, locations, or institutions continued to be an issue. P.L. 109-54 reduces
FY2006 funding below FY2005 appropriations for projects identified in the
conference report as “congressional priorities” (earmarks) within the Science and
Technology (S&T), Environmental Programs and Management (EPM), and STAG
accounts. These types of projects have traditionally been awarded non-competitively.
For the FY2006 funding of congressional priorities in the EPM and S&T accounts,
the House Appropriations Committee proposed a different approach, recommending
EPA award them competitively among recipients of earmarked funding in previous
EPA appropriations. This approach was not adopted in the final bill.
CRS-28
P.L. 109-54 provides more funding for the Superfund program than appropriated
for FY2005. The adequacy of funding for the Superfund program to clean up
hazardous waste sites also continued to be a prominent issue. During the debate,
some Members questioned whether the increases being proposed were sufficient.
They, along with states, environmental organizations, and others, argued that higher
funding is necessary to adequately address the risks to human health and the
environment from hazardous waste sites. Other Members and the Administration
asserted that the proposed funding would be sufficient to meet cleanup needs.
In addition to the adequacy of funding for Superfund cleanup activities, the
source of funds continued to be a point of contention in the debate over EPA’s
budget. As the balance of the Superfund Trust Fund has been expended, the program
is now supported with general Treasury revenues, leading some Members of
Congress to advocate the reinstatement of the taxes on industry that once supported
the trust fund. The Administration and other Members assert that individual polluters
continue to pay for site cleanups and that a tax on industry as a whole is therefore not
needed. P.L. 109-54 continues to use general Treasury revenues to support the
program in FY2006.
EPA’s use and consideration of intentional human dosing studies, whether
conducted by EPA or others, for determining associated human health risks of
pesticides were of interest to Members during the appropriations debate. Of
particular interest were concerns about the adequacy of health safety standards for
human research subjects and general ethical questions with respect to EPA’s use of
data from such studies. P.L. 109-54 includes provisions directing EPA to complete
relevant rulemaking according to specific congressional recommendations, and
banning the use of FY2006 funds to consider or to conduct human dosing studies in
the agency’s review of pesticides until a final rule is issued.
Throughout the debate, there were varying levels of interest in specific funding
for other EPA activities as well. The ability to increase funding for projects or add
new projects in FY2006 ultimately was affected by competing priorities of Congress
to allocate limited funding to numerous federal agencies within the Interior
appropriations bill, where EPA’s funding now falls. EPA’s funding was moved from
the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development (VA-HUD), and Independent Agencies to
that of the Interior subcommittees beginning with the FY2006 appropriations. This
was the result of a reorganization during the first session of 109th Congress that
included the abolition of the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations
subcommittee.